July 8, 2006

Photographed right here in Madison, Wisconsin, where I also saw this three foot high ceramic sculpture of a finger.

No, there's no relationship between the two photographs... except in your mind.

ADDED: What I'm leaving out is a lo-fi video I took of the Prince Myshkins singing about how the Founding Fathers were girlie men. If they email me and tell me to go ahead and upload the video to YouTube and post it, you can be sure I will. "Check out the pleated knee stockings on John Jay... Up jumps John Blair in a puff of powdered hair..." Seriously, email me, guys. That was amusing, but I don't want to violate your copyright.

Aliens: Those aren't dresses. They are clearly two-piece outfits. If there's some special meaning to the word "kilt" that I'm missing, then they are skirts. And look at your thumb. Can you get it into that position? No. That is an index finger. Though it does resemble the lower half of a fat woman's body.

And Little Mr. Apricot thought he was just letting everyone know that he was #1!

As you saw it up close and personal, I must defer to your better judgment. Besides, I can't do that very convincingly with my middle finger, but I can with the index finger.

I definitely agree that it is NOT a thumb, and no, I can't do that with my thumb, although both of my thumbs are double-jointed, an admittedly useless attribute, save for frightening drunks and small children.

Photographed right here in Madison, Wisconsin, where I also saw this three foot high ceramic sculpture of a finger.

I actually think it is a piece of functional art, and it is likely not a finger. Whenever Hillary is a dominant force, it curls into it's present state, whenever it is Coulter it is "upright" or a synonymn there-of.

Yes, Tibore, unfortunately they do. And here in New York, it's not just gay men that wear them. Worse yet, they are often paired with flip flops, which is an even worse crime than the shorts. As much as I can appreciate a man's feet (in the proper context) I DO NOT want to look at your hairy, dirty toes while riding the subway. Imagine the mentality of a person who would willingly wear flip flops to walk the hot, filthy streets of New York.

As for Ann's picture, I have several comments.

1. Because of the presence of Birkenstocks and what looks to be organic arugula peeking out of the backpack, I question whether these aren't actually really butch lesbians.

2. Even looking at the large version of the photograph, I cannot tell what the buttons on the backpack say, except that one of them says NO. NO pants? NO, I'm not wearing underwear? NO, this is not a frat initiation? Any ideas?

3. Is that a rosary bead eyeglasses chain being sported by the individual to dexter?

4. The worst aesthetic mistake, by far, exhibited in this photograph is those late-70s-early-80s sidewalk lamps. Lamp poles with illuminated polyps! Brilliant!

Ann sez:What I rush to assure you of is that we are in the middle of an expensive remodelling of the street and those lamps, which were once quite fashionable, are being replaced.

Well, belted velour tunic tops were once quite fashionable...

And no, they are not women. They were very hefty, football-type guys.

Oh good, now I can admit to finding them hot. I do admit to being slightly disappointed that there aren't hefty, football-type, be-kilted, Birkenstock-wearing lesbians wandering around Madison with organic vegetables.

Danny sez: Above 'NO' is 'VOTE' in smaller font. The button concerns the gay marriage/civil union ban Wisconsin will vote on this November.

I knew Madison was pretty liberal, but I didn't imagine that even the football jocks would be pro-gay marriage. Maybe they're gay football jocks. In Birkenstocks.

Palladian, I share your disappointment; linebacker dykes with organic veggies sound like fun. Here's a hint that can save you some embarrasment in a "drag queen or big-haired Texas gal?" situation: check out the calf muscles. You can see on these two that they're placed high, slightly above the middle of the lower leg, and especially on the one on the left, they're defined and prominent. Biological women's calves are a bit lower, and generally not so cut. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's a good clue.

I love men in kilts. I think it's a savage, macho look, and for some reason, I like that.

As for "manpris," I've been hating them for awhile. Some guys, straight guys, I suspect, try to get away with calling them "pirate pants." Righto, Captain Jack. It's the Seinfeld Poofy Shirt episode all over again.

It's fun to misunderestimate artist intentions. The finger folded like a trunk, clearly not pointing the way, with a thick hide and 'only one leg to stand on' could be someone's idea of Bush. I would disagree, of course. The leader of our herd clearly has tusks.

The men are kind of cute and look like Braveheart on granola. Lots of granola.

I love men in kilts. I think it's a savage, macho look, and for some reason, I like that.

It only seems savage and macho to me if the guy just stepped out of a time machine. It seems pretty cool if the guy is in a traditional kilt and playing bagpipes.

But a regular guy striding around in a modern kilt? "Dorky" is the word that most readily comes to my mind.

But then, I prefer that men look like they don't give much thought to their clothes. Nothing weird, yet nothing too refined for day-to-day wear. Just blah. For men's clothing I like blah. To me that is the most savage, macho look.